|
27TH BIENNIAL CLERGY-LAITY CONGRESS
GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE
1984
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE DRAWN FROM ENCYCLICALS OF ARCHBISHOP IAKOVOS,
AS WELL AS ARTICLES AND STATEMENTS FROM THEOLOGIANS, CLERICS AND ETHICISTS,
AND ARE MEANT TO CONVEY ORTHODOX THOUGHTS AND GUIDELINES TO KEY SOCIAL
AND MORAL ISSUES OF TODAY—RATHER THAN DEFINITIVE POSITION STATEMENTS OF
THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH.
For further information contact:
Department Church & Society
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of
North and South America
8 East 79 Street
New York, New York 10021
(212) 570-3550
THE FAMILY OF MAN
EMBRYO FERTILIZATION
Outside the Womb
FAMILY
The Orthodox Church affirms the duty of the procreation of the
human race, as our Creator commanded that man “Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). She is also aware of the added responsibility
given to man in the second charge of managing his own reproductive behavior,
to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion over every living thing” (Gen.
1:28-29). Herein can be found the answers to such modern issues as “maintaining
the balance of nature” and “guarding against overpopulation”.
The Church also stresses the sacramental character of Christian
marriage; in the Sacrament of Matrimony, natural marriage enters the realm
of God’s eternal Kingdom. Within its bounds, husband and wife are called
to perfect their love for one another into a life long communion and to
grow in oneness towards Christ. And out of this mutual love of husband
and wife for one another, all other purposes of marriage flow. Husband
and wife pledge their mutual support to one another not only in the joy
of life but also in trials and tribulations. They exclusively provide
for one another’s sexual fulfillment in an all embracing love.
CHILDBEARING
As the Christian couple progresses in love, they find themselves
growing closer, both to each other and to God. The eventual birth of their
children is an eloquent and significant expression and seal of their loving
union. For their offspring represent only the physical (genetic) union
of husband and wife, but also in their spiritual union, the presence of
God, the one true source of the love in their marriage. Here they share
with God in the creation of new human beings; with the Son who creates
according to the will of God the Father, and with the Holy Spirit who
imparts the vivifying grace of God to the child conceived. The new family
represents a little “ekklesia” or “church”, a magnificent manifestation
of Christ’s love.
A
– ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION
This sacramental unity of marriage and the family is maintained
as long as no foreign party sunders the unique bond between husband and
wife. It excludes all intrusions such as if a third party joins one of
the spouses in sexual relations, but also when the seal of marriage is
broken by an outside party contributing genetic material (whether semen
or ovum) towards the creation of a child who ought to belong genetically
to not one but both marriage partners.
For the same reason, in principle, the Church holds it morally
wrong for the ovum (egg) of another woman to be impregnated by the sperm
of the husband artificially and implanted in the wife’s womb. The obligation
to preserve the bond of marital fidelity thus prohibits Orthodox Christians
from the practice of artificial insemination by a donor in which the wife
of a sterile husband is impregnated through a medical procedure with the
sperm of an anonymous male donor. However, the Orthodox Church, recognizing
as it does the importance of the procreative function, does not offer
direct opposition to the procedure of artificial insemination where the
procedure respects the bounds of marital fidelity. This means the egg
must come from the wife’s own ovaries, and that the sperm must be the
husband’s own; for a donor, whether male or female, would constitute the
intrusion of a third party into the marriage tantamount to adultery.
What permits this rather unusual practice is that it is a way in
which medical knowledge is properly used to help the Christian marriage
realize one of its major purposes; procreation. There does not seem to
be any major moral problem with the relatively simple process by which
artificial insemination takes place.
B
– TEST TUBE BABIES
However, in vitro fertilization (test tube babies) according to
which the ovum and the sperm are united outside the wife’s body present
serious problems to the Orthodox conscience. In this procedure the cells
which produce the ova (oocytes) are removed from a wife’s body, fertilized
by the sperm of husband or donor, kept in a laboratory culture solution
until they reach a certain stage of development (blastocyte stage) and
subsequently transferred and implanted in the mother’s womb. Serious objection
is raised here to the fact that many more eggs are fertilized than can
be used; those not used are discarded. This is easily seen to be the killing
of potential life: abortion. Though there are a few cases of well born
test tube babies, we do not know the effects of this procedure on all
children who would be born from these methods. We do know that many deformities
can and have taken place in test tube experiments. Finally, objections
must be raised in terms of the mentality created by such a practice. As
a step which dehumanizes life and which separates so dramatically the
personal relations of a married couple from childbearing it is very suspect.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Orthodox Church does not encourage
its members to become involve din invitro fertilization procedures, nor
does it seem that it would be wise for society in general to encourage
this practice.
In the case of men and women who have been rendered sterile and
who cannot benefit from a fertilization procedure excluding all but genetic
material from husband and wife, the Church expresses sympathy but upholds
the sanctity of the marriage bond outside intrusion. A couple faced with
such a problem should be directed toward adoption as an alternative, especially
in light of our contemporary overpopulation problems. The Church would
for the same reason also have to reject any future use of a “host mother”
in whom a fertilized egg could be implanted until the fetus developed
to term, at which time the child would be turned over to its genetic parents.
Such a procedure is foreseen to be used when a woman cannot carry a child
to term due to uterine problems or defects, or if she simply wishes to
avoid the inconveniences of pregnancy and childbearing. This procedure
seems especially contrary to Orthodox Christian ethic in view of the special,
natural, spiritual, and emotional relationship which exists between mother
and baby during pregnancy.
C
– ARTIFICIAL WOMBS
If an artificial womb were to be developed making it possible to
support human life entirely outside a human mother’s womb, while no third
part is technically present here, it would seem that the Church would
also oppose this procedure as contrary to nature and as a sorry attempt
by creatures to mimic a function unique to their Creator. Such an action
would also constitute a denial of the fullness of our physical existence
which is sanctified by our Lord’s Incarnation and consecrated to God’s
service in all its aspects including the sexual and reproductive functions.
In opposing a substitute womb, whether human or mechanical, the Church
seeks to protect the mental and spiritual welfare of the unborn child:
the child of a “host mother” or artificial womb is a candidate for severe
identity problems: Who is his mother — his “genetic” or “host” mother?
And is a child of an artificial womb human, or machine? Indeed, the sanctity
of the mother’s womb must be maintained if we are to fully maintain our
humanity.
ABORTION
The most divine gift bestowed by God upon mankind is the gift
of life itself, and throughout the centuries the sacredness of human life
has been indisputed by responsible men and women of all persuasions.
We are currently confronted with a controversy surrounding the
liberalization of abortion statutes stemming from the initiative of various
groups and individuals whose actions, although predicted upon sincere
and humanitarian motives, are nevertheless in conflict with divine law.
Their position evolves from the general contention that the termination
of unborn human life is justifiable when medical opinion believes there
is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would impair the
physical or mental health of the mother, or that the child would be born
with grave physical or mental defects, or if the pregnancy resulted from
rape or incest.
It has been the position of the Orthodox Church over the centuries
that the taking of unborn life is morally wrong. This is based upon divine
law which is the most difficult law for man to comprehend for its transcends
the boundaries of human frailty due to its source of divine authority.
No law is perfect, and man in his diverse interpretations of the law is
continually reminded of his human limitations. Even in such basic law
as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” we can take no pride in its exceptions which
justify war and self-defense, for they serve only to becloud our unceasing
efforts toward shaping man in the image of God. This same principle of
exception also extends to the unborn child. When the unborn child places
the life of its mother in jeopardy, then and only then can this life be
sacrificed for the welfare of its mother. To move beyond this exception
would be transgressing man’s duty in the protection of human life as understood
and interpreted by the Orthodox Church.
We are profoundly aware that the discipline of divine law sometimes
creates inequities that are difficult for human comprehension to accept,
but the eternal values of divine law were not created for a man,
but for mankind.
The solution to our vexing problem of an increasing need for abortion
does not lie in reinterpreting the law to meet the needs of our present
day morality, but rather challenges us to find more effective means of
living up to the high standards of divine law which is the eternal protector
of human life.
We give glory to God for creating man in His image, and we offer
humble thanksgiving that in his unending search for knowledge and truth
man is proving worthy of this divine gift. With the great advances in
human achievement, especially in the realm of medical science, we are
fully confident that the welfare of both the born and unborn are being
drawn closer to the day when complications of pregnancy and abnormal birth
will go the way of many diseases which have been overcome and are now
conspicuous by their absence.
Only by our unrelenting efforts to override the age-old temptations
that beset the citizens of any society blessed with bounty and abundance
will we subdue the plethora of problems that now besiege us, and of which
abortion is only one.
It is our firm conviction that one day the laws of God and man
will coincide, and toward the achievement of that divine day of destiny
we pledge ourselves to the protection of human life, born and unborn,
as a sacred trust of man’s eternal covenant with God.
THE SOCIETY OF MAN
RACIAL EQUALITY
The Greek Orthodox Church is against racial segregation, and believes
moreover, that all Americans, regardless of faith or color, should be
granted equal opportunities for public education, and for employment in
all fields of endeavor, consistent with the best of their abilities and
qualifications; and that all should enjoy equal advantages and be the
beneficiaries of equal public accommodations and facilities.
In this spirit we call upon our fellow citizens of all faiths,
and upon all those who cherish truth and justice, to oppose every expression
and demonstration of bigotry. We also urge all our fellow citizens to
desist, in word and action, from whatever might seem to further the circulation
of false reports, rumors, or representations that distort our mutual relations
and the progress of common welfare.
But the Christians of America should feel that they have a special
mandate to work for equal rights for all. We are challenged to prove that
the Legions of Christ can, in His Name, uphold these rights wherever and
whenever they are endangered. Christian love is not a semantic symbol.
It is a commandment to which we must conform our actions as Christians
and strive in every way to make a reality, consistent with the will of
God which was expressed by His Son Jesus Christ when He said, “Love ye
one another”.
The whole question of integration and equal rights for all races,
and humane understanding among them, has an ethical basis linked not only
with our own national security but also with our relationships with half
the nations of the earth. Justice, peace, and equality are not meant to
be merely noble words; they are meant to be the basic and workable concepts
of humanity, which will teach us to help and respect each other.
Throughout the ages the Orthodox Church has survived centuries
of persecution which, even to this day continues to be imposed upon untold
millions of Orthodox Christians in many lands. The Orthodox Church has
borne the yoke of oppression and is wholly aware that persecution, prejudice
and intolerance is the greatest sin that the free soul of man can bear.
We therefore, extend and join with our fellow Christians and citizens
everywhere in deploring all vestiges of segregation that deny to free
men, the dignity of equal rights. We pray that the spirit of compassionate
patience and understanding brotherhood will penetrate the hearts of all
men and women whose leadership must guide the destiny of the great racial
challenge facing America.
As children of God, made in His image, we urge that all men of
all races exercise disciplined restraint in declaring their God given
beliefs and rights to that these blessings may be freely gained in a society
which constitutionally and spiritually guarantees these rights.
The Church deplores violence. It upholds however the right of free
men and women to act as the people of God in expressing their claim to
the God given rights, which no man can be denied because of color or creed.
God is Love, so love is the greatest power of His children on earth.
We prayerfully beseech our fellow citizens, and especially the leaders
of our nation, to decide their actions in the light of this eternal Truth,
and lovingly direct them towards a state of equality and social justice
that would secure peace and happiness both at home and abroad.
We pray that all men may transcend the limitations of human frailty,
and as God fearing and dedicated Christians, transmit the spirit of prayer
of our Lord and Savioiur, Jesus Christ:
“Love one another as I have loved you.”
CRIME, LAW, AND ORDER
Today our proud Nation wears a yoke of infamy — a yoke made of
greed, hate, violence, apathy and lawlessness. Collectively, it is called
CRIME.
This criminalistic burden grows heavier from disregard for the
rights of peaceful citizens, sprouting youthful criminality, riots engulfing
entire communities, unfounded and irresponsible charges against police,
public apathy, disrespect for law and due process, and undue concern and
sympathy for the lawbreaker. What has happened to the moral fiber of our
people? Recently seven leading citizens of a community testified in court
to the excellent reputations of the defendants although they admitted
knowing those on trial had engaged in criminal activities for many years.
Crime and law and order are natural enemies. In a sense they are
inseparable. Their courses lead to an inevitable collision. At times,
crime and violence erupt in the streets of our communities and all but
overrun our legal barriers, which are becoming porous and weak by abuse
and misuse.
We see examples every day where the supremacy of law and order
is put to test. Enforcement officers are called on to handle explosive
situations — riots, premeditated arson, civil disobedience, and wild rampages
— that border on insurrection and anarchy. Whole areas of cities rise
in smoke, pillage, and destruction. While enforcement officers strive
to restore order, they are shot, assaulted, and taunted.
Recent court decisions seem to place more emphasis on the conduct
of the police officer than on the conduct of the criminal. The question
of guilt is obscured and lost in a maze of procrastinating technicalities
and legal joustings. Many times, truth, which often exposes guilt, is
only a secondary objective; the main search is for error or a technical
loophole for the murderer or hoodlum.
Crime rates in the United States will drop when the criminal is
convinced that his arrest will be swift, his prosecution prompt, and his
sentence severe.
The height of human dignity is reached by free men deliberately
choosing their destiny, humbly mindful of their obligations to their Creator
and their fellow man.
As Edmund Burke stated, “The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing”.
The Orthodox Church believes:
That we must reawaken in every citizen a fierce devotion to supremacy
of law and equal justice;
That we must forever renounce the idiocy that associate glamour
and heroism with lawbreakers;
That all criminals must be brought to the bar of justice for realistic
handling, not merely maudlin sympathy;
That means must be provided to defeat the enemies within our borders
who are puppets of enemies from without;
That we must insure by every lawful means that differences are
resolved in the courtroom, not in the street;
That we must adamantly insist that each individual is held responsible
for the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The early church was opposed to capital punishment. There were
several reasons why this was so. The first was based on the teachings
of the Lord. Capital punishment is based on the idea of retribution. All
systems of law, both ancient and modern, espouse it. The Old Testament
expresses this view with the teaching “an eye for eye and a tooth for
a tooth” (Leviticus 24:20). The conclusion is inevitable: “Whoever strikes
a man so that he dies shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:24). Jesus’ teaching
on retribution is very clear. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist one
who is evil … love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”.
(Matthew 5:38-39, 44).
Later the opposition to retribution was easily applied to capital
punishment. The early Christians were frequently victims of this law in
the Roman Circus where they were sentenced to die by the judges of the
empire. But Christians were also opposed to capital punishment because
it was the taking away of life. The clearest statement of early Christian
opposition to capital punishment comes from the pen of Lectantius (240-32):
When
God prohibits killing, He not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which
is not allowed even by the public laws, but He warns us not to do even
those things which are regarded as legal among men… And so it will not
be lawful for a just man … to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because
it makes no difference whether thou kill with a sword or with a word,
since killing itself is forbidden. And so, in this commandment of God,
no exception at all ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong
to kill a man, whom God has wished to be regarded as a sacrosanct creature.
Institutes VI, XX, 15.
So long as Christians were themselves persecuted by the State and
there was no possibility of Christians holding public office and having
to enforce “those things which are regarded as legal among men” the Christian
view was relatively easy to maintain. If the State was going to execute
men for capital crimes, it was the State’s business, but Christians should
not have anything to do with it.
The problem arose, however, when after Constantine the Great, Christians
began to enter government service and became the makers of the law, the
judges and the enforcers of public order and peace. In the words of St.
Paul, the ruler “is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong,
be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. He is the servant of
God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).
So long as it was considered necessary for the sake of justice,
good order and the deterrence of wrong doing, most Christians found it
possible to go along with the idea of capital punishment. It was not seen
as an ideal, or as a desirable thing, but as an unfortunate necessary
evil. In no case was it ever argued that capital punishment was desirable
for itself or that it ever fitted very well with the Christian idea.
With more information available to us today about the consequences
of capital punishment, many Christians are of the opinion that it no longer
serves a deterrent to crime. Statistic of the United States show that
the existence of capital punishment in some states and its absence in
other states seems to have no measurable effect on the rate of various
capital crimes.
One reason for this is that long ago capital punishment ceased
to be uniformly enforced. For a long time now, persons accused of capital
crimes who can afford the legal expertise nearly always escape capital
punishment. Generally speaking, only the weak, the poor, the friendless
have been executed in more recent years.
Thus it appears from a Christian point of view that the State has
the right to employ capital punishment as a deterrent to crime, if it
chooses. However, if capital punishment is maintained, then it ought to
be consistently enforced. It is clear that in America we are not willing
to do that. This provides an opportunity for Christians to seek to make
known their own ethical view into the law of the land. Repealing capital
punishment however, requires that persons who are dangerous to the safety
of good citizens and who threaten the order of society either be fully
reformed or permanently imprisoned. Abolishment of capital punishment
requires a consistent and strong penal policy and prison reform.
PREVENTING NUCLEAR
WAR
Though the Orthodox Church has not traditionally held a pacifist
position on the questions of war, it has always seen war as evil. When
forced by events to become involved in war, Orthodox Christians continued
to see such war as an evil, and its termination was sought with prayers
directed to God.
The threat of massive destruction by nuclear weapons and its cost
in human lives, cultural and civilized values, economic resources, the
pollution of nature, and its long-lasting residual impact on human life
make nuclear war a totally indefensible alternative. International tensions
as well as the proliferation on nuclear weapons among second and third
world countries greatly increase the potential of the willed or accidental
use of highly destructive nuclear weapons. We believe that it is a spiritual
and moral imperative that every effort be exercised with a sense of urgency
to both stop the increase of nuclear weaponry and to resume the process
of serious negotiations to reduce the already swollen capabilities of
the superpowers and other nations.
In light of the international realities, to reduce the threat of
nuclear war requires an end to the superpowers’ arms race and an immediate
and drastic cut of their nuclear arsenals.
Pending the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear
weapons, all nuclear weapon States must, as a first step, undertake unconditionally
not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries
and nuclear free zones, and they must not be the first to use such weapons
against each other at any time or under any circumstances.
A nuclear war may break out in two ways: either the major nuclear
powers engage each other in a nuclear war from the very beginning, or
they begin with a conventional war which may escalate into a nuclear conflict.
Therefore, we must in no case lost sight of the danger of a conventional
war while paying attention to the prevention of nuclear war. Otherwise,
the door may be left open for the outbreak of a nuclear war. The harsh
reality in the world today is that the enormous conventional military
armaments in the possession of the superpowers are often used as a means
of aggression and expansion. While carrying out nuclear disarmament, the
two superpowers should be urged also to take the lead in drastically reducing
their huge conventional armaments.
In order to prevent war and safeguard world peace, it is essential
for the people of the world to close their ranks and wage a resolute struggle
against all manifestations of hegemonism and expansionism. And the struggle
for disarmament should be combined with this struggle.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
The abhorrence of war and its accompanying tragedies is wholly
supported by the spiritual and moral tenets of the Orthodox Church.
Notwithstanding this, Orthodoxy has often, over its long history,
found itself at the very crossroads of national and international turmoil
and persecution which made war eventually inevitable. While the Church
abhors the making of war it must consider the larger alternative of evil
which history has proven time and time again cannot be averted. Therefore,
with the exception of students preparing for the priesthood, the Church
has never taken a position preventing its members from serving in the
Armed Forces.
Those seeking to apply for the status of Conscientious Objector
must do so on the basis of personal belief and conviction nourished on
the highest ideals of the Christian Gospel. These do not only forbid participation
in the taking of life — an action necessitated by war — but the desire
to attain the highest possible spiritual perfection in and through Our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. A candidate for the status of conscientious
objector must proclaim that any other classification would infringe upon
and frustrate his spiritual aspirations, and that service to one’s country
in a humanitarian capacity is the preferred alternative.
Any request for a statement as to individual character and religious
commitment must be acquired from the local Greek Orthodox Priest who is
personally familiar with the life of the candidate.
OUR CHILDREN
SCHOOL PRAYER
The historic decision of the Supreme Court that prayer and Bible
reading in the classroom are unconstitutional represents the final stage
in the gradual process of estrangement of religion and school. It is the
sad culmination of the growing secularization of American life and a departure
from the traditional reverence for religion in public schools.
It is a tragic irony that in an age of spiritual bankruptcy we
are witnessing the betrayal of the Judaeo-Christian heritage which has
nourished the moral and spiritual fiber of this nation from the beginning.
The Court ruling separates religion still further from American
society and compartmentalizes to a further degree. It confirms the suspicion
that atheism is just as legitimate as religion in our American Democracy.
The atheist is just as good an American as the believer in God. Americanism
has become totally unrelated to faith in God. Official expression is given
to the new attitude that religion is irrelevant to Americanism. But, it
is an easy step to make moral and spiritual values irrelevant, too. When
the state “reverently” isolates the School from every last vestige of
religious expression after almost 200 years since its inception, it is
dealing a blow to the cause of national security. On the one hand the
state appeals to our sense of justice, equality and rightness, and on
the other, it removes the foundation of these values from the public school.
The Orthodox Church cannot remain complacent in the face of the
recent Court decision. Having grown and flourished in a culturally homogeneous
world, she judges as detrimental to the security of the nation any act
that alienates public Education from Religion. No nation and society can
prosper unless these three basic institutions work together on the basis
of commonly accepted values and ideals rooted in Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, Who is the Life and the Way and the Truth. There is no permanent
prosperity and security in any nation or society apart from Him.
Since the Orthodox Church has moved Westward and finds herself
in a pluralistic society, she prays that public education will preserve
the minimum of acknowledgment of the importance of Religion. She rejoiced
to see that the Bible, which is possessed in common by all religions in
America, had been an object of reverence and source of inspiration. She
lamented when even this least evidence of faith was removed allegedly
in the name of religious freedom. Now she laments even further with the
elimination of prayer from schools, thus playing into the hands of the
foes of religious belief.
PORNOGRAPHY
The unprecedented flow of pornography in our country confronts
us both as Greek Orthodox church persons and as concerned citizens.
Religion and morality are indispensable supports of our form of
government. Pornography constitutes a vicious assault on those supports.
It dehumanizes the human person, reduces him to an animalistic level,
and is therefore contrary to the will of God. It is destructive of the
institution of marriage, and so of the family. It is destructive of love,
preaching a doctrine of ugly lovelessness to our children.
Religion and morality are the resources on which our government
must draw. When we look at the freedom with which pornography flows today,
when we look at our spiritual and moral capability, then we see a depletion
of that capability.
We are equally concerned about the crime of pornography as citizens.
We see how it adds to the soaring crime rate. There are so many areas
in our cities where people no longer have the use of their streets because
of this fear to walk them.
Contrary to the view expressed by some, pornography debases society
and its growing influence threatens our view of life and all that true
religion teaches about human relationships. As pornography has grown in
popularity its content has worsened considerably. Much of it now portrays
violence, degradation and humiliation in addition to explicit sexual content.
Common pornographic themes now include sadism, incest, child molestation,
rape and even murder.
So called adult bookshops in the United States now total more than
15,000 … three times the number of the nation’s largest restaurant chain.
In 1983 the industry was estimated to have taken in $6 billion, almost
as much money as conventional movie and record industries combined.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
We must stop looking through our fingers as if to say this cannot
happen with our people. It already has. Let us become aware of it. Pray
that we may be all of one mid and accord before God. We must stop the
degeneration of the term sex and return it to its proper light as taught
by the Holy Orthodox Church.
1.
This spirit can be accomplished
by realizing these facts and urging our spiritual leaders speak out on
the subject.
2.
We can draw attention to
the smut rackets in our communities by the spreading of valuable information
about them which are accessible form such publications as The Readers
Digest.
3.
Greek Orthodox can write
letters to the leading publishers and producers of films to restrain the
production of such materials.
4.
The local chapters of our
organizations can form committees who will investigate their local distributors
of books and movies and should such pornographic materials be available,
try to discourage such businessmen from distributing it.
5.
In many communities there
are already groups which have been organized to challenge the spreading
of this trash. Our local churches should do everything possible to aid
these groups.
Let us practice our Faith, not with words alone, but with positive
action by not becoming contributors to the spreading of this evil. Let
us challenge such conditions and say we are positively opposed to it!!
Our brother is our concern; Lead him not into temptation but deliver him
from evil.
SEX EDUCATION
For those who would introduce sex education into the schools, the
question of values and norms for sexual behavior should be the key problem.
It is important that sex education not be reduced to the mere communication
of information. Rather, this significant area of experience should be
placed in a setting where long-tested human, personal and spiritual values
can illuminate it and give it meaning. In such a setting, we are convinced
it is not only possible but necessary to recognize certain basic moral
principles, not as sectarian religious doctrine, but as the heritage of
Western civilization and Christian morality.
The challenge of resolving this problem of values in a pluralistic
society makes it all the more imperative that communities planning to
introduce sex education into the schools not only call upon educators
to become involved in decisions about goals and techniques, but also invite
in our situation parents and clergy in the community to take part in shaping
such a curriculum.
To those groups responsible for developing school and community
programs in sex education we suggest the following guidelines:
a)
Such education should strive to create understanding
and conviction that decisions about sexual behavior must be based on moral
and ethical values, as well as on considerations of physical and emotional
health, fear, pleasure, practical consequences, or concepts of personality
development.
b)
Such education must respect the cultural, familial and
religious backgrounds and beliefs of individuals and must teach that the
sexual development and behavior of each individual cannot take place in
a vacuum but are instead related to the other aspects of his/her life
and to his/her moral, ethical and religious codes.
c)
It should point out how
sex is distorted and exploited in our society and how this places heavy
responsibility upon the individual, the family and institutions to cope
in a constructive manner with the problems thus created.
d)
It must recognize that in school sex education, insofar
as it relates to moral and religious beliefs and values, complements the
education conveyed through the family, the church or the synagogue. Sex
education in the schools must proceed constructively, with understanding,
tolerance and acceptance of difference.
e)
It must stress the points of harmony between moral values
and beliefs about what is right and wrong that are held in common by the
major religions on one hand and the generally accepted legal, social,
psychological, medical and other values held in common by service professions
and society generally.
f)
Where strong differences
of opinion exist on what is right and wrong sexual behavior, objective,
informed and dignified discussion of both sides of such questions should
be encouraged. However, in such cases, neither the sponsors of an educational
program nor the teachers should attempt to give definite answers or to
represent their personal moral and religious beliefs as the consensus
of the major religions or of society generally.
g)
Throughout such education human values and human dignity
must be stressed as major bases for decisions of right and wrong; attitudes
that build such respect should be encouraged as right, and those that
tear down such respect should be condemned as wrong.
h)
Such education should teach
that sexuality is a part of the whole person and an aspect of his dignity
as a human being.
i)
It should teach that people
who love each other try not to do anything that will harm each other.
j)
It should teach that sexual
intercourse within marriage offers the greatest possibility for personal
fulfillment and social growth.
k)
Finally, such a program
of education must be based on sound content and must employ sound methods;
it must be conducted by conscientious teachers and leaders, qualified
to do so by training and temperament.
OUR SOCIAL CONCERNS
HUNGER
In the world today there are over 500 million people who are severely
and chronically undernourished. Over the past decade this number has grown
steadily from the 360 million which was estimated in 1969-1971. If this
trend continues — and we have no evidence to suggest that it will not
— there could be 650 million people suffering from acute hunger at the
year 2000.
While statistics cannot begin to portray human anguish, two considerations
relating to the beginning and end of life are important. In most of the
countries with endemic food deficits, infant mortality is above 130 to
each 1,000 live births per year and the expectancy of life at birth is
below 50 years, or a full quarter century less than in more fortunate
countries. Hunger denies, wastes or degrades the gift of life for too
many people.
The growth of hunger could be arrested. Careful, analytical
studies show that with a modest increase in effort by all people and religions
of the earth, the advance of hunger can be halted. It could be reduced
by half or more in the next two decades. The attention of the Greek Orthodox
should be repeatedly drawn to this immense and awful tragedy.
The decline in infant mortality rates worldwide over recent decades
— the gradual reduction in the number of children dying before reaching
the age of one — did not occur by accident. It was not a fluke or chance
phenomenon. This progress was the result of dedicated, sustained efforts
by people around the world to improve the quality of life for themselves,
their families and their communities.
The news that some progress has been made must not be seen as an
invitation to sit back, take it easy and assume that all is going well.
The problems of hunger, malnutrition, disease and poverty will not go
away by themselves. And although there is reason to be encouraged that
progress has been made, that progress only emphasizes how far we have
to go and the overwhelming scope of the job ahead. It must be a personal
challenge to each of us to expand and improve upon those actions that
have brought us to where we are today.
We should be challenged to again ask and answer for ourselves the
question: What will the Greek Orthodox Church do to support fellow human
beings in breaking their chains of hunger?
The appropriate personal action for us to take may change from
year to year, or even day to day. By keeping this question before us,
we ensure that our words and actions will continue to make a difference
and that the progress toward ending the unnecessary deaths of our fellow
beings will continue.
AGING
The biblical attitude toward the aging stands in sharp contrast
to contemporary attitudes. In the Bible, old age is promised as a reward
for respect toward parents.
“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment
with a promise), “That it may be well with you and that you may live long
on the earth” (Ephesians 6:2-3, RSV)
Throughout the Scriptures all people are urged to show reverence
and respect for the aging.
Hearken to your father who begot you, and do not despite
your mother when she is old (Proverbs 22:223, RSV),
Do not rebuke an older man but exhort him as your would
a father; treat … older women like mothers… (1 Timothy 5:1-2, RSV)
Paul, in his letter to Timothy, challenges children to care for
the aging and needy in their families, to return benefit for benefit to
parents who have nurtured them when they were young (1 Timothy 5:4).
In addition to specific biblical references concerning respect
and care for aging persons, one prevailing truth which permeates the Scriptures
is the sacredness of human personality. Respect for persons should be
a vital part of our religious experience and should characterize our attitudes
toward the older members of our society. Respect for old age is a human
attitude which distinguishes man from beast.
NEEDS
Attitudes toward the aging members come into proper perspective
as the Christian family seeks a better understanding of the special needs
of the aging. Where are some of these needs?
We need to remember that the individual does not become someone
else as he grows older. People do not develop drastically different personalities
overnight at the point of retirement. A person has the same basic needs
and general traits when he is 70 as he had when he was younger. The aging
do not suddenly become either self-sufficient or dependent, responsive
or withdrawn, hopeful or hopeless. They had these qualities earlier although
they may become more pronounced in later years.
The general needs of older persons can be summed up as follows:
1.
They need to love and be loved. They need friends and
companionship.
2.
They need to be useful. They need activities in keeping
with their abilities.
3.
They need adequate income for food, clothing, lodging,
health care, and some miscellaneous purposes.
4.
They need recreation along with an opportunity to entertain
as well as be entertained.
5.
Older persons need to continue to grow through mental
stimulation, keeping up with the times, and learning new facts.
6.
They need physical care. When they are well and active,
care means regular examination to discover problems which may be treated.
When they are handicapped, care means rehabilitation and special provisions
for them in the home. When they have serious chronic illness or are physically
or mentally incapacitated, care may mean institutional service.
7.
They may need financial and legal counsel and, when
they do, the role of the family member will be to encourage them, in a
non-threatening manner, to get such help.
8.
They need to be an integral part of the normal life
of the family, the Church, and the community.
9.
They need to feel that friends and family members do
things with them, not just for them.
10. Most older people do not want to be around their children
or grandchildren all of the time. They value their privacy very highly
and generally prefer to maintain their own homes. The best living arrangements
for older people may be with their relatives, but this is often not the
case.
11. They often need transportation for a variety of purposes.
For instance, they may need help getting to the grocery store, the doctor,
the drug store, and the church services.
12. Christian families should be aware of the deep spiritual
needs of their aging members. The aging especially need the assurance
of God’s continuing love and protection, release from anxiety about illness
and fear of death, spiritual growth through new experience with the Lord,
and a continuing feeling of usefulness in the work of the Lord.
Certainly the greatest need for those who have come to old age
without Christ is to come to a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as
Lord and Saviour, and to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.
It should never be too late to make this decision.
HOMOSEXUALITY/HOMOSEXUALS
A
HOMOSEXUALITY
The Bible and Holy Tradition, the sources of the faith condemn
homosexuality. It is, and shall remain for Orthodox Christians a grave
sin, because:
1.
Bible and tradition so reveal.
2.
It is intrinsically promiscuous and breeds promiscuity.
3.
It often preys upon the young and innocent, corrupting
their morals with devastating affects upon their psychic structures.
4.
It undermines the family unit as an institution of our
society through the advocacy and promotion of legislation permitting,
popularizing, and facilitating the existence and growth of a form of cohabitation
which is a mocking parody of the family.
5.
It frustrates the self evident purpose of sex within
the order of creation, and as such is an abnormality. Orthodoxy distinguishes
between the procreative purpose of human sexuality, and the feelings of
desire which are attributed to the fallen nature of man, whereas the former
is a property of the Primordeal nature of man and not the result of sin.
Thus mutual fulfillment through the stilling of desire can not be looked
upon as a purpose of sexuality and marriage nor can we divorce the potentiality
of procreation from normal sexuality.
B
THE HOMOSEXUAL
The homosexual is viewed as a person with a sexual abnormality.
As a person, he is entitled to basic human rights, and the protection
of the law. The protection of his person as a citizen must not be extended
to the protection of his abnormality, which would, in essence comprise
a legal sanction of homosexuality.
Movements that seek to remedy the intrinsic guilt or self-consciousness
of the homosexual, through the organization and formation of a subculture
whose existence is predicated upon sexual misorientation; and the use
of public funds to condition society to accept homosexuality as a socially
and morally acceptable alternative life style, as remedial measures, beg
the true issue of the causes of the plight of the homosexual by treating
the symptom rather than the cause, and result in a disservice both to
the homosexual and to society.
Thus the enactment of legislation which seeks to legislate immorality,
serves only to perpetuate the problems and weaken society. In humanitarian
consideration of homosexuals as fellow human beings we advocate the increased
availability of counseling, psychiatric, and medical services to treat
the cause wherever treatable, and the legal social structuring necessary
to discourage the growth of homosexuality as a sociological phenomenon.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Since the question of human rights is clearly a political concern,
does it follow the Christian people and Christian churches may wash their
hands of the matter? Greek Orthodox faithful, especially those who emigrated
to this country, feel that they are indeed blessed by God to live in a
land where the freedom to worship as one pleases is respected as the inalienable
and divine right of every man. Because of this, our Greek Orthodox Faith
places us at the very heart of the issue of human rights. This fundamental
freedom is the first of the Bill of Rights which was ratified as part
of our Constitution on December 15, 1791. One hundred and fifty-seven
years later, on December 10th, 1948, the nations of the world gathered
in San Francisco to sign the United Nations’ Charter which reaffirmed
“Faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worthy of human
person and in the equal right of men and women”. In July and August of
1983, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, the World Council of Churches
sixth assembly reaffirmed its commitment to work for the “Realization
of Human Rights which has been demonstrated in the life and work of the
churches throughout the world…”
It is the firm conviction of the Greek Orthodox Church that all
human beings, regardless of race, sex, or belief have been created by
God as individuals and in a common, human family and community. In reconciling
humankind and creation with God, Jesus Christ has also reconciled human
beings with each other. The Church is increasingly aware of the fact that
human rights cannot be dealt with in isolation from the larger issues
of peace, justice, militarism, disarmament and suppression. The fuller
the rights that every person enjoys in society, the more stable that society
is likely to be; the fuller the implementation of human rights globally,
the more stable international relations are likely to be. Injustice in
a society, including the corruption of public officials, may contribute
to domestic, economic, and political disorder, which in turn may lead
to the deterioration in relations among nations.
In the name of the Holy Trinity, the Greek Orthodox Church reaffirms
its commitment to work even more fervently with other denominations and
groups for the elimination of all forms of inhumanity, brutality, discrimination,
persecution and oppression, both within the United States, and in the
world. As we view with concern the racist apertheid policies of South
Africa; the pressures confronting the Nicaraguan people by the “contras”;
the economic exploitation of people in the Third World; the suppression
of human and civil rights in Turkey; the gross violation of international
law on Cyprus; the continued strife and repression of human rights in
Northern Epirus; the killings, torture and climate of fear in El Salvadore;
the continuing breakdown of mechanisms that insure human rights to people
in the Philippines, Paraguay, China, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Chile, Peru,
Argentina, Uruguay, and other places of the world; the restriction of
religious activities and practices in the Soviet Union, Rumania and East
Germany as well as Bulgaria, the occupied Baltic States of Lithuania,
Latvia, and Estonia, cause us the discrepancies which exist between what
we profess and what we practice. We must move beyond making declarations
about human rights, to making more effective use of existing mechanisms
and devising where necessary new means for meeting this challenge.
The Church prays; “For those who are harassed and persecuted because
of their religious beliefs, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike, in many parts
of the world; for those whose rightful demands and persistence are met
with greater oppression and the ignominy; and for those whose agony for
justice, food, shelter, health care and education is accelerated with
each passing day”. (Archbishop Iakovos, “Letter to the Reverend Clergy”
December 6, 1978).
|
